Officiating officers vested with full administrative powers are competent to impose major penalties including dismissal.

The petitioner, S. Srinivasan, was a Postal Assistant at Dharapuram HPO who discharged five Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) worth ₹65,100 to a woman claiming to be the guardian of a minor investor

Contrary to departmental rules requiring payments exceeding ₹20,000 to be made via cheque, the petitioner paid the entire amount in cash

Subsequent inquiries revealed that the minor’s actual mother was deceased and the payment had been made to an impostor

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and the petitioner was dismissed from service by A. Sundararajan, an Assistant Superintendent officiating as the Superintendent of Post Offices

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai, dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to the dismissal and his subsequent review application

The petitioner then moved the High Court via a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.

1. Whether the discharge of KVPs by cash instead of cheque and to an unauthorized individual constituted a serious dereliction of duty justifying dismissal

2. Whether an officer officiating in a post (leave vacancy) is competent to exercise the powers of a disciplinary authority to impose major penalties

3. Whether there was a violation of the principles of natural justice during the disciplinary enquiry

The court primarily applied the Department of Posts SB/SC Manual, which mandates that any payment of ₹20,000 or above must be made by cheque only

Fundamental Rule 6 of Appendix-3 in F.R. No. 9(19), which stipulates that an authority appointed to officiate in a vacant post is delegated "full power"

Rule 12(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which defines the competency of a disciplinary authority to pass orders of penalty

The court observed that the petitioner committed a "deep underlying fraud" by failing to adhere to the mandatory cheque-payment rule for amounts over ₹20,000, which facilitated payment to an impostor

It rejected the plea of violation of natural justice, noting that the petitioner had cross-examined witnesses and produced defense exhibits during the enquiry

On the pivotal issue of competency, the court analyzed the appointment order of the 3rd Respondent, which authorized him to "officiate" as Superintendent

Integrating this with F.R. No. 9(19), the court reasoned that the term "officiate" carries the right to discharge all duties of the post, and "full power" includes the authority to act as a disciplinary authority

The court concluded that since the delegating authority was competent, the officiating officer had the jurisdiction to impose the penalty of dismissal

The High Court answered the issues in the negative for the petitioner, dismissed the Writ Petition, and upheld the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal

No costs were awarded.